Leave last 3 Shuttles in Space?

Forgive me if this is a stupid idea because my knowledge of orbits and requirements of earth to moon travel is extreemly naive.

Why could we not leave the shuttles in space to provide transportation to and from the ISS and Moon Stations that will someday become reallity?


Or why not attach the shuttles to the ISS to provide more work/storage space not to mention emergency life boats should something happen to the ISS.

Seems like you could rig them up and seal them up while attached to the station to provide emrgency sanctuary should something horrible happen to ISS?

Seems an awful waste to just abandon them and let them rot here on earth. I think the high expense of these come from tha tlaunch so orbiting them shouldnt cost to much..?

Because the shuttles are old and badly in need of replacement.

It is not such a silly idea to have craft in orbit as rescue vehicles etc, just not the shuttles.

Actually that isn't too bad of an Idea.... have a continuious gravity sling shot loop to the moon... hell or dock them like you said. I think thats a perty good Idea.

I think is a good idea too, though i would not use the shuttle, as it is an old craft that needs retiring.

Perhaps the ESA Hermes design, if it is still around, would make an ideal craft for Earth orbit space transport and rescue. i would suggest docking them at the ISS myself, but i am not that much an expert on orbital calculations

I think is a good idea too, though i would not use the shuttle, as it is an old craft that needs retiring.

Here, Here!

At last someone that agrees with me!

I must have posted abuse towards the shuttles about 100 times and nobody agrees with me!!!

Originally posted by MickeyDee

I think is a good idea too, though i would not use the shuttle, as it is an old craft that needs retiring.

Here, Here!

At last someone that agrees with me!

I must have posted abuse towards the shuttles about 100 times and nobody agrees with me!!!

I agree in a since as the shuttle is old. Although it is nearly brand new. It is refurbished to nearly new before each flight. I don't want to see the shuttles continue to launch by any means. However just leaving them up there as a Bus or a Life boat could be worthwhile, instead of spending more billions on developing a new craft to do these jobs.

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Xeven]

However just leaving them up there as a Bus or a Life boat could be worthwhile, instead of spending more billions on developing a new craft to do these jobs

I agree and have suggested this several times in various threads.

If only the men from NASA could hear us!

it's the best possible thing they can do with the shuttle it's not like it's going to rust up there, and I'm suprise in the years we have had astronaunts in orbit there has never been any kind of emergency escape vehicle, I mean look at Mir didnt' they have some kind of emergency where stuck up there.....

sure the shuttles are refurbed for every mission. problem is that the airframes are getting old and worn. just how many times have each shuttle been subjected to the forces of blast off and the heat of reentry? each can cause weakening of the basic structure and framework. the shuttle fleet has performed admirably, with a great safety record. just as was the case of the concord fleet. but both types of craft are overused and have to sustain major abuse in their everyday life.

i have an interesting thought. when we have a replacement for the shuttles, why not load them up with suplies to build a true spaceship? one that does not ever enter orbit. then they can canabalize the shuttles as well to use in the construction. since there is no need to streamline in space the shuttles could be used as flight quarters and liveing quarters. with a girder system for stores and propulsion systems..

Originally posted by drogo
sure the shuttles are refurbed for every mission. problem is that the airframes are getting old and worn. just how many times have each shuttle been subjected to the forces of blast off and the heat of reentry? each can cause weakening of the basic structure and framework. the shuttle fleet has performed admirably, with a great safety record. just as was the case of the concord fleet. but both types of craft are overused and have to sustain major abuse in their everyday life.

i have an interesting thought. when we have a replacement for the shuttles, why not load them up with suplies to build a true spaceship? one that does not ever enter orbit. then they can canabalize the shuttles as well to use in the construction. since there is no need to streamline in space the shuttles could be used as flight quarters and liveing quarters. with a girder system for stores and propulsion systems..

canabalize!! Excellent suggestion. I also think there are lots of satelites including the Hubble that they could make use of to build the CEV or other exploration probes.. Why launch new hardware when we can make use at least in part of some of the stuff thats up there.

I wonder how many really expensive cameras we have launched up there that could be sent to Jupitor on the Icy moons mission.. or something.. Seems like just letting stuff rot or burning it up is a total waste of good material that costs millions to put up there..

For one thing, the Space shuttle really cannot be used as an orbital "ferry" sicne it really has too much mass, and not enough fuel to create the Delta-V neccesary. IIRC the shuttle only has enough fuel on board after achiving orbit to change its orbit by 2 degrees. Most of that fuel is used for limited manuvering in space, and deceleration to return to earth.

Most of the wear the shuttle recives comes from the lift-offs and re-entry, and micro-meteorites, so leaving them in orbit could help.. but after 10 years in space it would cost more to keep it running.

Also one of the main drawbacks of the shuttle is radiating excess heat. Which is why it allways is in orbit with hits bay doors open even the electronic equipment aboard the space shuttle is enough to overheat the shuttle.

The cost alone of refurbishing the shuttles nad sending them on a one way trip into orbit rather limits it's usefulness as a ferry, or poormans space station

apartently Jehosephat is the only person yet to actually use their brain.

Sorry but those ides were all pretty crazy.

First off the ISS does have a vessle to carry people back in case of an emergency, its the Russian progress, it can carry 3 people back at any time, although once the shuttle start to fly again the ISS will be more operational and it will have around 7 people aboard.

and the shuttle cant go to the moon! it can only go as high as the ISS, which is 250 miles, and even if (for some dumb reason) you dicided that you could fill the shuttle interal tanks and also you would probably have to strap on some additional rockets to get there, but then when you do get there..then what? it has wheels, and as far as I know the moon doesn't have a 3 mile long runway.

I could explain more, but i think I've made my point on how dumb all of those ideas are. and you (Xeven) have shown that a lot of people agree with you...its kinda sad how uninformed people think they have all the answers.

Murcielago, the statements aren't dumb, its more the mis informed side of it that is evident.

Putting man on the moon was a 'crazy' idea once.

I think it wouldn't be cost effective just on the maintenance side of things to leave those old birds out there. Let alone they would be 3 more things to look after while we are still in our infancy of Space Exploration.

Using them to get to the moon to deploy machinery and building supplies only , could be a better use for them. Then again they'd have to undergo some major re vamps. Hello Budget.!!

If you could easily and cheaply refit the cargo bay to hold a large fuel tank, it might be possible to use it to go between terran and lunar orbits. I wouldn't say the idea is stupid.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If you could easily and cheaply refit the cargo bay to hold a large fuel tank, it might be possible to use it to go between terran and lunar orbits. I wouldn't say the idea is stupid.

If the cargo bay is full of fuel, then where are you going to put the stuff it's ferrying?

well if your just going to end up scrapping the shuttles in the next couple of years and they only have the 3 man Russian vehicles for emergencies like his omnipotence stated above and it will be years before they get another more effective for emergencies transport you don’t want the astronauts drawing straws for the 3 seats. They can dock the shuttle and keep it shut off and it may even prove useful space to keep extra equipment and they would probably only need minimal fuel to make it from orbit incase of an emergency.

And while I really don’t see any plausible reasons to take the shuttle to the moon but I don’t think they would need 3 miles with the moons gravity; they would need a smooth surface but not 3 miles.

Oblivions void
I don’t think they would need 3 miles with the moons gravity; they would need a smooth surface but not 3 miles.

Thats the recomended length for the shuttle landing on earth, and the runways is one of the thickest in the world because the shuttle only uses 3 pairs of wheels. and yes it would weight 1/6 of its "earth weight", however on earth the use the chute to get it to stop, the moon has no air, so it would probably need a longer runway.

.... weight 1/6 of its "earth weight", however on earth the use the chute to get it to stop, the moon has no air, so it would probably need a longer runway.

not if it slowed down enough!!

Though I don't know enough about its thruster config and capabilities to make that call.

I stand corrected, longer but not 3 miles so wait does that mean I was.........

PS: anyways it's a moot point there is absolutely no plausible non-holywood reason why a shuttle would be needed to go the moon as was stated before.

[edit on 4/20/2005 by Oblivions void]

Originally posted by Esoterica
If the cargo bay is full of fuel, then where are you going to put the stuff it's ferrying?

Well not the entire cargo bay would have to be used for fuel, and it would carry passengers.